Objectivism

[Zakhur]

Hi Zakhur,
You wrote:

The word is "anamnesis."

That's the third spelling of the word I have come across. I know what it means and I know that it works, that is why I recommended it to Birkeland.

I was not assuming your total ignorance of the word. I just thought I'd share what I remember about it.

One of his conclusions, therefore, was that the best lived life was the one in which a person did everything possible to "recall" everything they had "forgotten" when they were born into the physical world.

Wrong. Could you refer me to where of Plato states this?

No, I can't. I just remember it from my classes.

He recommended certain behavioral habits to accomplish this which escape my memory.

Try anamnesis.

Anamnesis was Plato's technical term for the general process of the recollection of the forgotten eternal knowledge. He recommended a certain lifestyle to help accomplish it. If I remember correctly, he thought athletic activity contributed somewhat. There were other things too.

If you wish to understand Plato try reading Plato or check out these:
http://www.hermes-press.com/
http://www.hermes-press.com/plato_index.htm
http://www.hermes-press.com/PT_menu.htm

http://plato-dialogues.org/plato.htm

You are unjustifiably accusing me of total ignorance in this regard. I have read some of Plato. That's why I feel comfortable talking about his thought.

[Grey Cloud]

Hi Zakhur,
You wrote:

You can read the differences for yourself in Plato's works containing the thought of Socrates and the works containing Plato's original thought. I see differences. You may not. Difference of opinion then.

That Plato evolved his own philosophy from that of Socrates is common knowledge. My question was directed at your authoritative statement:

I've come to the conclusion that Plato was less comprehensive in his thought than was his master.

From my own reading it appears that scholars cannot agree on exactly where Socrates ends and Plato begins. Further, it is widely understood that Socrates focused primarily on Ethics, less so on Politics and very little on Metaphysics. Plato's works on the other hand, cover all three areas and his Metaphysics is more prevalent. So I still don't
understand how you can suggest that Plato was less comprehensive than Socrates.

You wrote:

I share your [Alton's] enthusiasm. Enlightenment philosophy has been an exercise in a lunatic's self-absorption. We are less able to discover the world outside our minds as a result.

And I asked:

And exactly how do you justify this statement?

To which you responded:

Oh, you think Enlightenment philosophy has made us better? Please tell me how.

I did not suggest that the Enlightenment made things better (or worse). You are the one who made the authoritative statement to which I asked a question. You have not answered the question but have attempted to deflect it back to me by asking a question.
Do you not think the invention of, say, telescopes and microscopes has made it more possible to 'discover the world outside our minds'?

[Grey Cloud]

Hi Zakhur,
You wrote:

You are unjustifiably accusing me of total ignorancein this regard. I have read some of Plato. That's why I feel comfortable talking about his thought.

I apologise if I have given that impression, it wasn't my intention. My reason for the links was that those two sites give, what I feel, is a more accurate reflection of Plato's philosophy than do most of the scholarly and academic sites I have seen.
You mentioned that you learned Plato 'in class' so I would recommend those sites again. I read the material on the various scholarly and academic sites before I read Plato, however, I found the Plato I read to be unlike the Plato I had been led to expect.

[altonhare]

For the record apart from the fact that I disagree that anyone can be objective full stop

To even make this statement you have to accept the objectivity of your consciousness/observation. To declare any claim wrong/invalid requires objectivity.

The rejection of identity requires one to accept identity. For something to be "not something else" it has to be something specific. For a person (consciousness) to declare A "not B" then that person is accepting the objectivity of their consciousness/observation.

So you cannot even refute identity or objectivity without accepting both.

[Grey Cloud]

For the record apart from the fact that I disagree that anyone can be objective full stop

To even make this statement you have to accept the objectivity of your consciousness/observation. To declare any claim wrong/invalid requires objectivity.

The rejection of identity requires one to accept identity. For something to be "not something else" it has to be something specific. For a person (consciousness) to declare A "not B" then that person is accepting the objectivity of their consciousness/observation.

So you cannot even refute identity or objectivity without accepting both.

Hi Alton,
With respect, the above is complete and utter nonsense.
I reject the notion that I can be objective because my opinion/decision is based upon my subjective experience/learning/ignorance/prejudice/pre-conceptions/culture and god knows what else.
I can never be objective full stop/period. I can be more objective in, say, giving a friend advice than I can in giving myself advice. In other words, I can be relatively objective but not absolutely objective. Absolutely not.
Any 'objective' decision I make or opinion I voice is subject to me being correct in that decision or opinion. I am willing to entertain the notion that I may in fact be dead wrong about something. Any decision/opinion etc is also subject to me having all the relevant information pertaining to that decision or opinion.
I do not reject identity, merely your defintion of it. That I have an identity would seem to be the case. What exactly that identity is I am not yet in a position to say with any great degree of certainty. This, for me, also applies to other objects whether animal, mineral or vegetable.
I operate in a world of plasticity not concretes.

Just for the record here is a definition of objective which is the same as mine:

3 a: expressing or dealing with facts or conditions as perceived without distortion by personal feelings, prejudices, or interpretations
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/objective

[altonhare]

I reject the notion that I can be objective because my opinion/decision is based upon my subjective experience/learning/ignorance/prejudice/pre-conceptions/culture and god knows what else.

I see the problem we're having. Just because we believe something that is wrong, does not mean we cannot be objective. Indeed, to say that something is wrong demands we accept objectivity of out consciousness. If consciousness weren't objective we could not even say that we were/are wrong about anything.

You cannot say *anything* with *any* certainty without accepting the objectivity of your consciousness.

Stating that you can recognize an incorrect statement/concept/etc. demands objectivity.

So, to state with certainty that you cannot be objective demands acceptance of your objectivity.

[Grey Cloud]

Hi Alton,
You wrote:

I see the problem we're having.

No you don't. I don't have a problem; the problem lies entirely with you. I don't know, and I don't particulary care, what definiton of 'objective' you use but it does not appear to be the one everyone else uses.

Just because we believe something that is wrong, does not mean we cannot be objective.

I am not saying it does. Nor am I denying that one should always try to
be objective. I am saying that one cannot be objective full stop. I am saying that one cannot be (totally) objective because we carry too much emotional, psychological, cultural, etc 'baggage'.

You cannot say *anything* with *any* certainty without accepting the objectivity of your consciousness.

Again, I am not denying that I (as a human) have a facility for
objectivity. I am saying that exercising it in an absolute sense is beyond me (or anyone else).

Stating that you can recognize an incorrect statement/concept/etc. demands objectivity.

No it doesn't. Such a statement would be subject to my opinion of my
intelligence or my estimation of my capacity for such recognition.

So, to state with certainty that you cannot be objective demands acceptance of your objectivity.

No it doesn't. Anything I state whether tentatively or authoritatively
is subject to all sorts of other factors such as I've mentioned above and in my previous post. You stating that you can be objective is subject to your opinion of yourself and your opinion that it is possible to be objective, for instance.

[altonhare]

I am saying that one cannot be objective full stop.

Yet to make such a statement you have to be objective. To state something can/cannot be something else with *absolute certainty* demands objectivity.

Therefore, by your own philosophy, your own philosophy is just opinion. You have no capacity to refute my argument because you state that nothing you say, can be uttered with certainty.

In fact, you have no capacity to state your philosophy. You can only say "maybe we can't be objective, but we can't be sure".

[Grey Cloud]

I am saying that one cannot be objective full stop.

Yet to make such a statement you have to be objective. To state something can/cannot be something else with *absolute certainty* demands objectivity.

Therefore, by your own philosophy, your own philosophy is just opinion. You have no capacity to refute my argument because you state that nothing you say, can be uttered with certainty.

In fact, you have no capacity to state your philosophy. You can only say "maybe we can't be objective, but we can't be sure".

Hi Alton,
So which is it? Your first sentence says I have to be objective by dint of making a statement, then the rest of your post tells me my philosophy is just opinion.

Your overall argument is in any case facile. Just because I cannot give a 100%, cast-iron guarantee on the veracity of a statement does not necessarily invalidate it. Not all of us are as lucky as you, some of us are wrong from time to time. Still, we soldier on doing the best we can with the best we have.

If I have 'no capacity to state my philosophy', what have you been responding to? What have I been posting? What have other users been reading? Is it all a figment of my imagination?

Can you give me one example of you being absolutely objective about something?

[altonhare]

So which is it? Your first sentence says I have to be objective by dint of making a statement, then the rest of your post tells me my philosophy is just opinion.

This is exactly the point! You have to be objective to even state that you cannot be objective. This is a contradiction, which indicates that your statement is incorrect. "Which is it" is your problem, you can decide to believe a contradiction or not. I do not.

Your overall argument is in any case facile. Just because I cannot give a 100%, cast-iron guarantee on the veracity of a statement does not necessarily invalidate it. Not all of us are as lucky as you, some of us are wrong from time to time. Still, we soldier on doing the best we can with the best we have.

You're missing the point. Your statement may be wrong, but it requires objectivity even to make an incorrect assertion. To state what something is not, is to know what something else is. I am not always "right".

If I have 'no capacity to state my philosophy', what have you been responding to?

By this I mean you cannot argue for or against objectivity because you do not accept objectivity. Certainly if you cannot be objective, then you cannot refute objectivity! If you assert that you cannot know anything with certainty, then you cannot know that objectivity is impossible with any certainty. This is the circular paradox produced by stating that one cannot be objective. Paradoxes/contradictions indicate that one is wrong.

Can you give me one example of you being absolutely objective about something?

Yes. Accepting objectivity.

[Grey Cloud]

Hi Alton,

This is exactly the point! You have to be objective to even state that you cannot be objective.

No again. I do not 'have' to be objective to state anything. As I've already stated, my views on objectivity are subject to my intelligence, experience, etc, etc. Is a misogynist being objective when he states that women are inferior to men? Am I being objective when I state that my footie team is the best in the land?

Your statement may be wrong, but it requires objectivity even to make an incorrect assertion. To state what something is not, is to know what something else is.

Wrong again. I assert that grass is blue. Is that objective or is it subject to my propensity to make irrational comments? To stat that something is not is subject to knowing something else is.
As I've stated previously, when one makes a statement on any topic it is subject to ones knowledge of that subject. It has nothing to do with objectivity. In various threads on these boards you have made statements about religion. Were those statements objective or subject
to your views on religion?
Your views on mainstream science are subject to certain traits within science which you find disagreeable. In both cases, science and religion, you are basing your opinion on your knowledge/understanding of those areas. You do not know everything there is to know about either science or religion.

By this I mean you cannot argue for or against objectivity because you do not accept objectivity.

I have said repeatedly that I do not accept that one can be totally objective. I have also stated that one can be more or less objective. You do not accept religion yet you make statements on the topic.

Accepting objectivity.

And what exactly is absolutely objective about that? It is subject to your current understanding of things. Are you suggesting that you accepted objectivity, totally or otherwise, when you were say, 18 months old? Do you seriously think that you will hold exactly the same worldview when you are say, 50 as you do now?

You can slice it and dice it any which way you want but you cannot be totally objective.

[Plasmatic]

Can you give me one example of you being absolutely objective about something?

GC your equivocating "objective" with infallable. If you read the Oist info would see this is the mistake in your rebuttal and why its a strawman.

Objective means to exist with identity independant of any consciousness . This follows from the axioms of Existence and Identity.Consciousness is the third axiom for a reason ,the same reason that makes "cogito ergo sum" backwards!

All Alton is saying is that to say anything you have to say something specific and therfore identity will hold no matter what you say.! Now the second equivocation is conflating perception with conception. Because of identity all knowledge is processed knowledge through a specific means with a specific method. This what it means to say that consciousness is objective.

Perception is the automatic integration of the sensory data into memory. This is where the data or content of consciousness comes from. Consciousness is the faculty of percieving that which exist. Consciousness like every existent has identity. So every interaction of entities is according to their nature/identity. Now unlike sensation and perception human consciousness is such that one must choose to think/focus on the data or not. The process of conception is one of volitionally identifying the particular facts recieved through the automatic data of perception. Because this process is NOT automatic one can fail to concieve correctly.This is the basis for mans need of a proper method of concept formation. Precisly because it is NOt automatic. The whole of knowledge is taking out and properly identifying the facts given in perception.

To say that perception is subject to its particular identiy is to affirm the objectivity/identity of perception .This affirms the absoluteness of existence not denys it!

The same applies to conception.

Even if your perception was such that its response to green was to see blue it would not change the
objective basis of the interaction of your identity with what its identifying. In fact because of the objective nature of your perception you and the folks who see blue would still point to the same instances that give rise to what your senses objectivly indentify according to its nature as green,and in the same instance causes blue according to my sensory perceptions identity.

So to say that because of the fact that consciousness has a specific means and method makes it "subjective" is to fail to realise that one invokes the assertion that one would need to percieve through no means and no how i.e non objectivly and without identity and therfore in an acausal manner.In one sweep this would make the whole of knowledge invalid .

A percept is a group of sensations automatically retained and integrated by the brain of a living organism. It is in the form of percepts that man grasps the evidence of his senses and apprehends reality. When we speak of "direct perception" or "direct awareness," we mean the perceptual level. Percepts, not sensations, are the given, the self-evident. The knowledge of sensations as components of percepts is not direct, it is acquired by man much later: it is a scientific, conceptual discovery

ITOE Rand

[rcglinsk]

Doesn't Amanesis mean to remember by integrating the written history into a community wide ritual? So the Christian Eucharist is the continuation of the Passover meal which is supposed to be a community wide remembering of God liberating the people from slavery. You have at the passover meal the ritualistic foods and methods of story telling. It's the same event built around the same story in millions of families over thousands of years. The history, albeit fictional, remains alive through the process.

When I learned what little philosophy my degree afforded me, they said that Aristotle thought one could deduce the truth of a situation by thought alone, while more modern philosophers emphasize repeatable experiments. I don't buy the idea one can learn about anything other than what it's like to ponder by sitting and pondering something for a long time, even if it's done according to some ritual or special rules. I've heard about people who are supposed to learn languages in dreams or whatever, but never seen any real experimental proof.

[Grey Cloud]

Hi Plasmatic,
You wrote:

GC your equivocating "objective" with infallable. If you read the Oist info would see this is the mistake in your rebuttal and why its a strawman.

No, I am not equivocating anything. I have maintained that 'objective' is a relative term and that one cannot be objective full stop.
I have no need to read the Oist literature as I gave my definition of objective. To wit:

3 a: expressing or dealing with facts or conditions as perceived without distortion by personal feelings, prejudices, or interpretations.
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/objective.

And, just for the sake of completeness, here is my defintion of 'subjective' from the same source:

3 a: characteristic of or belonging to reality as perceived rather than as independent of mind : phenomenal — compare objective 1b b: relating to or being experience or knowledge as conditioned by personal mental characteristics or states
4 a (1): peculiar to a particular individual : personal <subjective judgments> (2): modified or affected by personal views, experience, or background <a subjective account of the incident> b: arising from conditions within the brain or sense organs and not directly caused by
external stimuli <subjective sensations> c: arising out of or identified by means of one's perception of one's own states and processes <a subjective symptom of disease> — compare objective 1c
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/subjective

I realise that we are now in the 'Objectivism' thread but in the original context of my posts, the rest of your post is irrelevant.

[Grey Cloud]

Hi rcglinsk,
Not wanting to derail the thread now we are in Objectivism:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anamnesis

It's also spelled 'Amanesis' and is part of the Sufi way.
It's related to the concept of the Eternal Now and how the Universe is constituted.